Monthly Archives: May 2014

Kanab is a weird little pass through town. People stop on their way to and from Zion, Bryce, the Grand Canyon, Grand Staircase Escalante, Lake Powell, Vermillion Cliffs, etc., etc., etc., and the list goes on. For being such a centrally located town, it sure is behind the times a bit for travelers who might stay a while if there was a reason. Luckily there are a few business owners in town who get this: Willow Canyon Outdoor and the Rocking V Cafe.

At Willow Canyon they offer books, espresso, and outdoor gear. What else do you need? Oh yeah, baklava, and they have that too. The Rocking V has got great dining, a great atmosphere, and yes, adult beverages. So when heading out on any number of adventures found around Kanab, Utah, stop by Willow Canyon or the Rocking V Cafe. They are both rare finds worth stopping at on your way out or your way in.

On March 23, 2012 Governor Gary Herbert singed H.B. 148 into law. The Transfer of Public Lands Act was sponsored by Utah Rep. Ken Ivory, largely unknown until recent events in Bunkerville, Nevada and Blanding, Utah shot him into the limelight. He is the man of the hour for states’ rights proponents. After watching the debate in Salt Lake City about who should manage public lands I wondered if Ivory had a legitimate case and started looking into the arguments in favor of state takeover of public lands. But while Ivory’s argument seemed credible on the surface, after digging into the history and law of public lands, I don’t believe it holds water.

In order to understand the articulate and legal language used by Ken Ivory in his defense of transferring public lands to the state, you have to understand what he is arguing. Ken Ivory believes that the Enabling Act was a compact, whereby both parties were to get and give something, that it was a two way street. This is true, but not the way he is arguing it. He is proposing a legal theory: that the U.S. had a duty to dispose of federal lands (2). To put another way, he states that the U.S. promised to give the land to the states upon entry into the Union. In today’s world, this sounds legitimate, but when you dig into the history, you see that Ivory is ascribing intentions on historical parties that were never there. In other words, he is rewriting history.

Photo courtesy of farm land grab

Why would he do this? Because there is great wealth in those lands and he has come up with a novel way to argue for control of them. According to a recent article in The New American, “Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory, one of the summit organizers, noted that there is an estimated $150 trillion in mineral resources “locked up in federal lands” across the West (4).” That’s a big reason to wrest control of those lands. Of course no one knew this in the late 1800s, but if Ivory can make it appear that way, maybe the courts will relent. Surely the people of the Utah territory must have realized those lands would be worth something at some time and would have demanded they eventually be turned over, right? Probably not.

While this might fool Utah constituents, I doubt it will fool the courts.

First, let’s look at the idea of the Enabling Act being a compact between the state of Utah and the U.S. government. There is some truth to that. In order to be admitted into the Union Utah had to comply with conditions required for statehood to demonstrate their loyalty and to show they would become “Americanized.” Because the Utah territory was run by the Mormon Church, their loyalty was in question. The issue of polygamy and Mormon political power could also be seen as an issue of trust and loyalty; as one anti-Mormon advocate wrote in 1869: “It is time to understand whether the authority of the nation or the authority of Brigham Young is the supreme power in Utah.” Critics of the Mormon Church saw it as a potentially disloyal body that could not be trusted with control over a state government (1).

As a territory, they were under the plenary power of Congress which meant Congress could use legislation to suppress polygamy and even the Mormon Church itself, and it did. So in essence, they had no sovereign rights or protections. Statehood would grant Utah constitutional rights, federal protections, and state sovereignty. They applied for statehood in the 1860s and wanted it badly enough that they were willing to accept almost any conditions to have it. There were three main conditions they had to meet: 1. They had to forever revoke polygamy; 2. They were required to provide a public school system free from sectarian (church) control; and 3. The Mormon Church had to give up political power in the state by disbanding its political arm, the People’s Party, and ensure that a fair and republican form of government was established. It took some doing, but roughly 20 years after petitioning the government for statehood the conditions were met and Utah was accepted into the Union with the passing of the Enabling Act in 1896 (1).

Brigham Young, photo courtesy of Wikipedia

Part of the reason it took so long for Utah to gain statehood is because the minority, non-Mormons in Utah vehemently opposed it on grounds that the state would be governed like a theocracy, where the non-Mormon minority would have no voice or rights. Therefore, statehood was largely an issue of equality and of the separation of church and state, not over ownership of lands (See H.R. REP. NO. 50-4156, at 13 (1889) minority report opposing proposal for statehood for Utah stating that Congress should not admit the state until it is “satisfied that within said Territory there is no union of church and State”) (1).

Utah acquiesced to all the demands and did become a state. As for the federal government’s obligation under the Enabling Act, that obligation was constitutional. The obligation of the U.S. government is covered under the Guarantee Clause in the Constitution: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion and domestic violence. There is nothing suggesting a “promise” to transfer land to the states or that the states had any sovereign rights or powers over federal lands.

There is, however, great power given to the U.S. over federally owned lands under the Property Clause of the constitution which states: The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Ken Ivory states that under the equal footing doctrine, the states should have been given all public lands at entry into the Union, but the courts have not seen it that way. They have made the distinction, not by a definition of a compact, but by constitutional powers.

When it comes to questions of state sovereignty verses federal sovereignty, the court has relied on lines that delineate certain areas as “truly national” and certain areas as “truly local (1).” There have been cases where enabling act conditions were overturned because the court saw the conditions as Congress overstepping their bounds. However, “the court has been careful to emphasize that federal powers in regard to federal land came from the constitution, not from the admission compacts or conditions. Even if unequal distribution of federal lands within the states meant that newer states would face an increased burden from the same federal land conditions compared to other states that had little or no federal land, there was no infringement of state equality, even if new states had agreed to substantially different conditions related to those lands (1).”

As a result, conditions related to federal and Indian lands and the grants of lands by the federal government to the new states have been uniformly upheld by the courts as within Congress’s power. In Nevada v. United States, where Nevada, much like Utah, passed legislation demanding public land and sued over it, the court found that, “federal regulation which is otherwise valid is not a violation of the ‘equal footing’ doctrine merely because its impact may differ between various states because of geographic or economic reasons and therefore the large amount of federal land in Nevada can be placed under stringent management restrictions without violating the equal footing doctrine (1).”

Photo courtesy of the Western Nevada Historic Photo Collection

While Nevada did not sue under a duty to dispose, they did argue under their enabling act which is virtually the same as Utah’s in regard to public land. But all that aside, the federal government has disposed of lands quite extensively and has been since this country was founded. Nearly 816 million acres of the public domain lands were transferred to private ownership between 1781 and 2006. Furthermore, at least one section (1/36th) of every 6-mile square township was given to the states for the maintenance of public schools within the said township (State Trust Land). In total, the federal government has disposed of 1.275 billion acres of the 1.841 billion acres it acquired from state cessions, foreign treaties, and land purchases (3).

In Utah, many of those lands were transferred into private hands, such as the railroad, and through state trust lands, and the federal government is still transferring land, as was seen a week or so ago when an agreement was reached between the state and the BLM (Land Exchange). Funny enough, however, in the past the states were so reckless and unethical with the lands granted to them, the federal government had to come down even harder on them in the form of tougher restrictions and regulations (1), which begs the question: would the states really make better land managers than the federal government?

I would argue that the states would not make better managers of the land. Furthermore, I would suggest that the federal government is under no duty to dispose of public lands, even though they have done so; but rather that it is their prerogative. The truth is, the government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor or private individual and may sell or withhold from sale, as was found in Canfield v. United States (2).

Parashant National Monument

The bottom line is Ken Ivory and his ilk want the land so they can sell it to industry and extract all the wealth from it. How they will afford to pay for wildland firefighters, environmental degradation and contamination, loss of wildlife and subsequent hunting and angling dollars, or afford to lose any of the $6 billion in recreation and tourism dollars is beyond me. And this says nothing of the inherent danger in privatizing public lands.

While they state they would keep parks and wilderness areas under federal control, how many other pristine and little known spots will suddenly be off limits? And how long before those federally protected places are encroached upon or ruined by private interests? Even though I don’t think Utah will win this fight, all outdoorsmen and women should be alarmed at the thought of a state takeover of public lands. Those lands are our lands and were given to us in trust; ensuring this land ethic and heritage was one of the best and most visionary decisions ever made by our government. What will happen to the great outdoors if new managers take over? I seriously doubt the states will manage better, be as equitable, or continue to promote the priceless values found in those lands. Anything worth having is worth fighting for. We cannot afford to let the states dominate this conversation and bamboozle us into thinking it is good for us.

“Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us, and training them into a better race to inhabit the land and pass it on. Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.” ~Teddy Roosevelt

***Ken Ivory, in arguing for federal transfer of public lands, points to Illinois and Florida as examples of states winning public lands from the federal government, but that is like comparing apples and oranges. Both Illinois and Florida were admitted into the Union before the Civil War which was a game changer for admittance into the Union, drastically changing how Congress admitted new states. Furthermore, neither states’ enabling acts had language like that found in Utah’s and other western states’ enabling acts. Florida, admitted in 1845, was required to “never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands lying within [its borders], nor levy any tax on the same whilst remaining the property of the United States. Illinois, admitted in 1818, was required to be consistent with the Northwest Ordinance, and Illinois was required to not tax lands sold by the United States for five years, and to not tax non-resident property owners at a higher rate than resident property owners (1).***

This is an opinion printed in The Missoulian Newspaper in Montana by Land Tawney. I was going to write an article on this very issue, but this covers it so well I thought I would just share it.

Photo courtesy of Montana Hunters & Anglers!

From the dusty washes near Bunkerville, Nevada, to polished marble offices along K Street in Washington, D.C., there is a radical cry to wrest our national forests and prairies away from public ownership.

That cry should alarm all Americans who cherish their freedom to hunt, fish and otherwise enjoy the great outdoors.

One of the many blessings of American citizenship is the fact that we, the people, own 450 million acres of national forest, rangeland, wildlife refuges and national parks. Some of these lands are famous, like Yellowstone National Park, while others are obscure “secret spots” and quiet getaways. They include trout streams, elk pastures, duck marshes, scenic drives and huckleberry patches.

Thanks to the foresight of leaders like Theodore Roosevelt, we have an outdoor heritage unmatched in any part of the world. Hunting and fishing is a cherished tradition for millions of American families, not a privilege reserved to the landed elites. Our system is the envy of the world and depends on keeping public lands in public hands.

Consider:

■ Hunting, fishing and wildlife watching on national forests alone produce $1.7 billion in economic activity, tens of thousands of jobs, and $200 million in tax revenues. This is a sustainable, reliable stream of revenue for rural economies.

■ Our national forests support some 35 million days of hunting, fishing and wildlife watching annually.

■ Over 70 percent of sportsmen and women say they hunt and fish primarily on public land.

■ An estimated 90 percent of the elk in North America depend on national forests for their survival at least part of the year.

■ National forests and public lands provide the headwaters for our most cherished trout streams and clean water for all.

Our lives are richer for our public lands, both in terms of the economy and in ways that cannot be measured with an accountant’s calculator.

Land is wealth, so it’s no surprise that some special interests have their eyes on ours.

Last month, 60 elected officials from nine western states met in Utah to hear a lawyer’s twisted argument that our federal public lands birthright is somehow unconstitutional. The list of attendees included Mark Blasdel, the Speaker of the Montana House of Representatives.

Near the same time, a rancher named Cliven Bundy bullied federal land managers near his ranch in Nevada. He staged a showdown, bristling with rifle barrels, over his refusal to pay $1 million in grazing fees. Even though no western livestock associations would side with a deadbeat like Bundy, some politicians such as Kerry White, R-Bozeman, were eager to voice support.

Politicians who want to grab our public land repeat predictable talking points: they argue that federal government is mismanaging the land so it should be handed over to the states.

It’s easy to find fault in federal land management. Outdoorsmen share many of those frustrations and are working to improve responsive management. But there is no reason to throw the public lands baby out with the bathwater. The alternative is worse.

People should see the “state control” mantra for what it is: a smokescreen. State budgets are already stretched to the breaking point and states are not eager to pick up the costs that are part-and-parcel of managing these lands. Firefighting costs alone would crush state budgets.

States would face only one resolution: sell the land.

Public land liquidation would be a wholesale disaster for the American outdoor family. For all its warts, federal land management guarantees that every American has a voice in how that land is managed and they have an equal right to set foot on it.

Not so if public land suddenly becomes a private hunt club or a tree farm for a timber company.

People around the West need to ask those who represent them some hard questions: Are they siding with the forces that want to liquidate our outdoor heritage? And if so, why should they be trusted with something so rare and irreplaceable as America’s access to the great outdoors?

Land Tawney is executive director of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (www.backcountryhunters.org). He lives in Missoula.

The Salt Lake Tribune’s sponsored debate on public lands management in Salt Lake City May 14th, 2014. This debate is is being had in many other western states as well who are teaming up with Utah in it’s battle against the Federal Government for public lands. It seems to me that Nevada already tried this argument and lost, albeit without the ‘duty to dispose’ theory.

Utah Enabling Act – Section in Question:

“That the people inhabiting said proposed State to agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or any other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any Act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such land be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such Act of Congress may prescribe.”

Ranching rears its head again:

“Until the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, a substantial amount of federal land was still being unloaded each year, but that law ended the homesteading era where the goal had been to transfer federal land to state and private ownership. The Taylor Grazing Act authorized the Interior to put 80 million acres of land into grazing districts, which required users to get permits, pay fees, and follow federal regulations. Federal land sales slowed to a trickle, and the last major disposal of federal lands was in 1980 when Congress turned over several million acres of land to the state of Alaska and Native Americans in that state.

Robert Nelson has noted that “federal ownership of vast areas of western land is an anomaly in the American system of private enterprise and decentralized government authority. As such, there have been occasional revolts against federal land ownership in the West, such as the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s. Two developments that helped spur that rebellion were a 1974 environmental lawsuit that threatened to restrict grazing rights and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which declared that existing federal lands would remain in federal ownership. Western states led by Nevada fought back with legislation aimed at transferring federal lands to state ownership. However, the revolt fizzled out when ranchers and other users of federal land realized that they might not receive the same level of subsidies they currently received if land ownership was changed. The anti-Washington rally cry of the Sagebrush Rebellion had popular appeal, but the special interests that rely on the inexpensive use of federal lands helped to block reforms.”

Until the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, a substantial amount of federal land was still being unloaded each year, but that law ended the homesteading era where the goal had been to transfer federal land to state and private ownership.9 The Taylor Grazing Act authorized Interior to put 80 million acres of land into grazing districts, which required users to get permits, pay fees, and follow federal regulations. Federal land sales slowed to a trickle, and the last major disposal of federal lands was in 1980 when Congress turned over several million acres of land to the state of Alaska and Native Americans in that state.

Robert Nelson has noted that “federal ownership of vast areas of western land is an anomaly in the American system of private enterprise and decentralized government authority.”10 As such, there have been occasional revolts against federal land ownership in the West, such as the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s. Two developments that helped spur that rebellion were a 1974 environmental lawsuit that threatened to restrict grazing rights and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which declared that existing federal lands would remain in federal ownership.11 Western states led by Nevada fought back with legislation aimed at transferring federal lands to state ownership. However, the revolt fizzled out when ranchers and other users of federal land realized that they might not receive the same level of subsidies they currently received if land ownership was changed. The anti-Washington rally cry of the Sagebrush Rebellion had popular appeal, but the special interests that rely on the inexpensive use of federal lands helped to block reforms.

Until the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, a substantial amount of federal land was still being unloaded each year, but that law ended the homesteading era where the goal had been to transfer federal land to state and private ownership.9 The Taylor Grazing Act authorized Interior to put 80 million acres of land into grazing districts, which required users to get permits, pay fees, and follow federal regulations. Federal land sales slowed to a trickle, and the last major disposal of federal lands was in 1980 when Congress turned over several million acres of land to the state of Alaska and Native Americans in that state.

Robert Nelson has noted that “federal ownership of vast areas of western land is an anomaly in the American system of private enterprise and decentralized government authority.”10 As such, there have been occasional revolts against federal land ownership in the West, such as the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s. Two developments that helped spur that rebellion were a 1974 environmental lawsuit that threatened to restrict grazing rights and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which declared that existing federal lands would remain in federal ownership.11 Western states led by Nevada fought back with legislation aimed at transferring federal lands to state ownership. However, the revolt fizzled out when ranchers and other users of federal land realized that they might not receive the same level of subsidies they currently received if land ownership was changed. The anti-Washington rally cry of the Sagebrush Rebellion had popular appeal, but the special interests that rely on the inexpensive use of federal lands helped to block reforms.

Until the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, a substantial amount of federal land was still being unloaded each year, but that law ended the homesteading era where the goal had been to transfer federal land to state and private ownership.9 The Taylor Grazing Act authorized Interior to put 80 million acres of land into grazing districts, which required users to get permits, pay fees, and follow federal regulations. Federal land sales slowed to a trickle, and the last major disposal of federal lands was in 1980 when Congress turned over several million acres of land to the state of Alaska and Native Americans in that state.

Robert Nelson has noted that “federal ownership of vast areas of western land is an anomaly in the American system of private enterprise and decentralized government authority.”10 As such, there have been occasional revolts against federal land ownership in the West, such as the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s. Two developments that helped spur that rebellion were a 1974 environmental lawsuit that threatened to restrict grazing rights and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which declared that existing federal lands would remain in federal ownership.11 Western states led by Nevada fought back with legislation aimed at transferring federal lands to state ownership. However, the revolt fizzled out when ranchers and other users of federal land realized that they might not receive the same level of subsidies they currently received if land ownership was changed. The anti-Washington rally cry of the Sagebrush Rebellion had popular appeal, but the special interests that rely on the inexpensive use of federal lands helped to block reforms.

My assessment of the Blanding Protest: While Commissioner Lyman may have expressed concern about breaking the law (though he had no moral problem with it) and admitted that staying off the closed road would be the “intelligent” thing to do, it is clear he used caution because there was a large media presence there who would, in his words, “try them in the public eye.”

Though he had called the Bundy’s about the protest and stated he supported their cause, he reiterated a desire for safety and peaceful protest. Of course Ryan Bundy and his crowd did show up, whether by invitation or out of a mutual cause is not clear. What is clear is that Bundy wanted to commit the act of defiance and was not pleased with the change in plans to abide by the law. He stated, “I came here to open a road. If we’re not doing that, I’m going home.” He and his crowd persuaded all the others (it didn’t take much), including the Commissioner, to carry forth with the original intent to ride through the canyon.

While Stefnee Turk of the San Juan Alliance stated that the militiamen were not necessarily wanted there and that the event was planned before the Bundy showdown (she did not illegally ride through the canyon), it is clear in my mind that the Commissioner relished if not invited their presence, acquiesced to their wishes, and knew that they would get a lot of bang for their buck as he did the illegal ride after all. I am not suggesting that the Commissioner planned a “good cop bad cop” situation, but one can certainly speculate. Do we believe their words or their actions? It is easy to have a peaceful protest with a peaceful outcome when there is no opposition, law enforcement, Native American, Environmental, or otherwise.

Furthermore, when the local law enforcement contingent, the sheriffs in this case, state support for one side of this contentious cause with as many opposed to it as there are in support of it, it adds a certain level of security for one group at the expense of the others. It’s no wonder no one showed up to oppose it – there was no guarantee law enforcement would protect everyone equally, or that those breaking the law would abide any other laws or rules of conduct.